Skip to main content
10:30 pm
on this did not begin until 2008, before 2008, this was a repair garage. it has only been in the last three years that has served the parking. this was a small temporary use. there was a temporary use of that allowed for short-term working for patrons. we just heard yesterday from -- oi think we need to deal with te third floor addition. i would ask to the senate administrator to let us hold for
10:31 pm
a week a two to figure out a good way to save the corner of the addition. there is no other property that is affected by the third floor addition. because of the buildings is 100% lot coverage, there is no rear yard. this really heights the third floor addition from all vantage points. this does not impact the light -- >> thank you. the public hearing is closed. >> this is like a lot of things in san francisco, this is on- street. we have cupertino of electric in
10:32 pm
san francisco. i am a friend of parking. we really appreciate your testimony. when we hear testimony from those who don't believe they will have cars in the future, you might agree. we have to look at the specific use. there has been a lot of garages that of closed over the years because you don't service cars as often as you do. they could not support the use of the facility as a repair facility only.
10:33 pm
there is a private property situation. there are many ideas that they have about a use which would include perhaps electric car charging stations. ultimately, that would mean that the public, maybe this city if you have to buy this from the property owner and convert it into that use. that has a value and this is probably greater being used as condominiums and that is the way it works. i am not saying that is necessarily the way we go but the reality is that is certainly a factor. some of the things that were brought about come on this is two floors and this would be a little bit over two floors with the addition. that is the typography of the
10:34 pm
street. i was not impressed looking at the polls. there are some issues regarding the property and i'm not sure if those are property line windows or not but that is something that we can look at and see what is going on about that situation where it comes down closer. a few other observations, they are doing a good job. it has been brought up as creating some parking places in the street. that will be welcomed for additional parking places. there are the seven parking places. it is might open up some additional parking places for use by people in the neighborhood who might want to purchase them everywhere. one of the things will be the
10:35 pm
utilization factor because i am hearing and no one is disputing that this is underutilized now. this is not being used for monthly renters at anywhere near its capacity. whether that is a product of the price charged or more readily if it was lower or whether it this is realistic. this is underutilized. i am sympathetic because this is a tough place to park. if people have businesses, they can not only cater to those who are strong enough to get up the hill. you have to have parking for that. this is a good access for them
10:36 pm
to come into for the condo rather than having them come off a tight street. i have never quite been a believer in this, we should try to make things blend been more closely. if you look at the back of the opera house, that was in addition done about 25 years ago. this was done around the same time and these blend in seamlessly. there's no reason why you can make this addition that is sympathetic to the windows. that is the parking situation. we will see what the commissioners have to say.
10:37 pm
quarks i would think that i would agree with commissioner antonini this time but he went a different way. that is very interesting. he makes a very powerful case for supporting the class housing and while a new construction, i often question that.
10:38 pm
i happen to live in that area for the last 8 years. i know the change this area has gone through. the standard buildings to not provide parking. you struggle on the street or i don't know what you do. it is difficult for the diverse neighborhood to deal with it. we wanted to let a carbon footprint where you circle the block for two hours. we had a very robust discussion earlier today on our project on townsend and richie and we supported the idea of adequate
10:39 pm
parking and in support of be eating and drinking was not a good idea. i felt that i was supporting something which is analogous to what we are doing. i got the 2010 census data. we have a population of -- we have 345,000 occupied in its. we have 31,000 unoccupied housing units. why would we take seven units at this time given the huge amount of unoccupied units. we are not driving the
10:40 pm
efficiency and housing and adding these units. having said that, i'm not in support of this project as this is proposed. i appreciate the neighbors and the varied pieces of information and to increase my knowledge about the situation. i believe that this of metal that is in front of us prior to coming into this room was deficient in terms of disclosure about what this building really wanted to do. i told mr. crawford that. this is on fair to the commission. this is a policy issue that is a neighborhood specific issue. this project is not really disclose their architectural intent is for me like i feel
10:41 pm
cheated and i am not supportive of it. >> i wanted to share some of my thoughts on the application. this is a noncompliant structure that is not comply with the zoning district. they're changing the use and therefore intensifying this. this is also a non complying use. this is very prescriptive about what uses are needed and allow full. -- allowable. residential is the primary use. other alternatives would be in
10:42 pm
some institutional uses or public use. also the idea of existing parking, i understand that is a benefit for the community and they would be impacted by the removal will -- impacted by the removal. this is completely up to the project sponsor. those are some of the thoughts that i have. thank you. >> i am having a problem with this one. -- used to joke that he had to remember in front of which fire plug that his car was parked. i don't think that he was
10:43 pm
joking. and i am not against possible developer this building but i am not totally convinced that this is the right development. i would have liked to have known more about the former uses. i know that this was an actual repair garages. i don't know enough about the interaction between the current owners and the businesses in the area and how the garage has been promoted, whether there are discounts on parking of any time with the use of the surrounding businesses. none of that and formation has been supplied to me. i don't have enough information
10:44 pm
to go on. >> by a am a little surprised because i used to live on high street. i am very familiar with russian hill. all of these places are places i have frequented. i don't drive to russian hell because i know you can't park. this is what we talked about in other areas of the city, we discourage people from driving to places that you don't drive in. taxicabs are cheaper than what you pay for parking for a night. when we are talking about transit first and holding the other areas to a higher
10:45 pm
standard, the whole premise is that you make it more difficult and hopefully people will take transit. this seems counter to all of the areas. in general, i don't think that the best use for a piece of land is parking. i could probably make a lot of money but i don't think that that is the best use. i was excited about the use of this building. it is very rare that we see that. i think this is the designation of this building. i thought it was a cool concept to take a building like this and make it housing. there are lots of old buildings that have been turned into housing. we don't have that in a san
10:46 pm
francisco. on the issue of housing, we will always have a housing problem and i don't think that the seven units will solve any problem. i don't think that we need more luxury housing. to the extent that you can get people to be in more luxurious places, that is always a good thing. no one has commented on the building. i would be interested in what the commissioners expertise is. i am not against turning this into another use.
10:47 pm
this is not a conditional use. i think that is the context in which we need to look at that project. i feel a different standard for this neighborhood then what we hold other neighborhoods to. >> i generally support growth and change but i have a difficult time supporting this project. my family and i have probably had countless ice creams at swansons. i don't buy the idea that this is being used for parking. i feel that it is used by d staff here by probably businesses. what i support and what i don't feel comfortable about is that
10:48 pm
it has strong use at night for the restaurants. this stimulates business in neighborhoods in san francisco. the parking necessary for those restaurants, i have a hard time supporting this. >> i want to repeat what the zoning administrator said. the new owner could never force those additional parking spaces which would be leased or rented. this particular project applies for two spaces per unit and i find that the incorrect way of doing it. if this turns out to be a condominium, which is what kind of sounds like.
10:49 pm
those parking spaces can be sold for a huge amount of money. this is what i don't find transparent and clear about this proposal. >> i agree in a little bit with commissioner more. i think these units would do quite well because they are a very desirable area. they would be highly sought after. much of the vacancies we have are for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do. the quality is in bad shape. some are kept off the market by landlords. some are dealing with the laws we have. that is a whole separate issue.
10:50 pm
she makes a good point about the possibility and i will proceed see what the commissioners -- there are some possible things that could be done. we talk about the parking and we talk about the 14 spaces and perhaps there might be a way to change it and devote some of the parking spaces to use by the neighborhood and something like that. maybe a way to work it that might make it more acceptable. >> i agree with almost everything every commissioner said, so i am confused. i probably agree with commissioner antonini and perhaps miguel to continue it with some additional information
10:51 pm
forthcoming. testimony from the adjacent property owner was more directed to the variance. i think that that should be volunteered by the project sponsor to work out some kind of solution for the light well situation. i think that is essential. parking, i would like more information on the kind of history of the property itself. i think that goes along with commissioner more. historically, was it a garage? what kind of parking did it have? all of that kind of stuff would be interested -- interesting to have. i don't know if we can ask for parking monthly rates or not.
10:52 pm
it seems as though if it went from what was alleged to be 200, that might be a factor and why there are only 30 people usingis at the moment. there are car share spaces here. i think additional spaces that end up being of a ratio is excessive and we should stick to one to one parking if this will be approved at all. i was looking for a bike parking on the lower floor but i think that should be added. my biggest issue is at the front elevation. if the project is going to move ahead, i don't know what the vote would be. i think the front elevation, one
10:53 pm
of the gentleman who testified earlier pointed out that as a grudge building, i think that the openings are extremely important on the front elevation. the proposed solution to block off the bottom portions, for me, although it retains the character of the garages, it makes it look like it was formally a warehouse. the difference is that for example, you have to start building that is currently forever 21. they were allowed to fill in some of the door openings. in that case, this is a commercial building and retail building. those openings don't define what that building was as much as this one. in order for the project, i
10:54 pm
disagree with see historic preservation consultants. some openings me to be retained all the way to the sidewalk. -- need to be open to the sidewalk. the character needs to be retained. i think if d.r. is taken at some point, i would like that to be a condition. >> this is a hard one for all of us, obviously. for me, the reason it is difficult this because i respect -- this will sound off, i think but this is the reality. we have four russian hill association to oppose the project and will work closely with a lot of these organizations and we are sensitive to what the neighbors input because they lived there
10:55 pm
and they understand the conditions in ways that sometimes many of us don't. it is hard for me to dismiss frequently what the neighbors have to say. i am not entirely opposed to this project. i think a project of this type could work at this site. this was in 2008 which was the date when they started to use this as a commercial parking space at a higher level. this has been about three or four years.
10:56 pm
>> it seems that there is a possibility that this will be coming back as it continued item unless we take the are -- unless we take dr. we don't know how many parking spaces have been used over the past hundred years or whatever. a specific number, i would like to understand. 48, ok. >> nobody really knows. >> i am asking for clarification from staff. this is fine. >> great, perfect. it must be true, apparently. >> i will not debate that. anyway, there are some clarifications around that
10:57 pm
stuff. my explanation is towards transit first. i take the bus everywhere, etc.. at the same time, i share a lot of concerns that i was hearing. you have businesses that sort of neat to have some commercial parking available in order to remain viable in the city. at some point, we will not rethink the transit first policy but we will look at parking in a more progressive way and maybe there is such a thing. we are usually on the opposite poles. i am wondering how we contend with this. my inclination is always stores transit first and how do we hold
10:58 pm
to those values. i like the idea of the adapted it reuse of this building. this is a beautiful building and it will be used at actively and not demolished. i agree with what the commissioner was saying in terms of his recommendations and suggestions around the design. again, i would like to see this project or some iteration actually move ahead but i think that we have some questions to resolve. i would not at this point want to see this project go away completely.
10:59 pm
there is no way of mandating that the owner keeps this use should we deny this project. so, i think we have a lot of things to look at. also, the property, this is as commissioners a guy mentioned is something that's is still be considered and the impact on the renters at that building. i think that there are some things, i would like to see a way that this project will work better with the concerns that we heard today and i think that this is a lot more complicated. parking and those issues have a lot more issues that are affecting it than just this one. there are still parking issues. if it

March 11, 2011 10:30pm-11:00pm PST

TOPIC FREQUENCY San Francisco 4, Antonini 2, Mr. Crawford 1, Usingis 1, Richie 1, Swansons 1, Etc. 1, Cupertino 1
Network SFGTV
Duration 00:30:00
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 89 (615 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 528
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color